REPORTING on the alleged Oxford child sex abusers – nine men stand accused of raping and sexually abusing children – has been restricted by the ongoing trial. But what has not been said can be as illuminating as what has been said.

Seven of the nine male defendants are of Pakistani origin and two are North African. All the alleged victims are white.

The Times does report those facts.

The men are aged between 24 to 38. The children were aged between 11 and 15 when the alleged abuse occurred.

In 2006, one of the children went to the police. Aged 14, she claimed to have been “held against her will by two Asian men” at a house in Oxford. Police recorded her testimony on video. She claimed Akhtar Dogar, now aged 32, attacked her.

It is alleged the men targeted young girls from vulnerable and chaotic backgrounds, and over a period of eight years subjected them to extreme physical and sexual violence, sold some victims for prostitution in Oxford and trafficked others around the country.

Does ethnicity matter. Noel Lucas, prosecuting, thinks it does. In his opening remarks he said:

“They were introduced as friends, brothers or cousins, the vast majority being Asian and the rest black. Photographs were taken of her on their mobile telephones, sometimes in the course of sexual activity. She never received any money but she saw it changing hands.”

It quotes Lucas in the headline. But the paper makes not a single mention the word “Asian” in its story:

Mr Lucas said the men “actively targeted vulnerable young girls from the ages of 11 or 12…There is evidence that the men deliberately targeted children who were out of control. They also targeted children who had been sent to live in care homes for precisely that reason. Some of the girls had been sexually exploited by other men, before they encountered these defendants. Some girls already being abused by the group were tasked to find other girls for the group.”

He said the girls were chosen because they had troubled upbringings which made it less likely that anyone would have parental control over them or be looking for them.

The Sun does the same as the Mirror. It mentions the word “Asian” in its headline, but not in the story beneath it:

The trial is both highly sensitive, because of the nature of the allegations and the links with the Asian community. There have already been small protests by members of the English Defence League.

The whole community? In being sensitive, Sky has implicated all Asians. Blimey!

So. What do you notice about the case? That the accused are all non anglo-Saxon Christians? That they are all men? That the alleged victims were all white? That the children are not racist, allegedly, able to trust Asian men as they would white men? That the children were all let down by adults..?

How the media interprets it is not of any relevance to what actually happened.

dairy

I would notice that there is a striking similarity between this case and the recent one in Rochdale….?
unpleasant though it may be, surely it would be foolish to ignore a potential cultural problem in these cases?

The Real Stig

Ah, two from North Africa, that let’s those from Pakistani origins off the hook then. I wonder if they are all Muslims, though.
.
Can you imagine what would be happening in the streets if the men were all of anglo-saxon heritage and the girls all under-age Muslim/Asians? I suspect there would be rioting in the streets.

Bimmerman

Or indeed what would be “happening in the streets” if the girls were Muslim and the men were anglo-saxons, in helicopter gunships….oh sorry, that’s over there and not over here – can’t be comparable.

d wakefield

“The men are aged between 24 to 38. The children were aged between 11 and 15 when the alleged abuse occurred.”

were? are??? how old ‘were’ the men OR how old ‘are’ the alleged victims now … when did the alleged abuse actually take place

so its at least 7 years ago … does this mean that the accused men were possibly 17 to 31 … or as the alleged abuse took place over 8 years this makes it 15 years ago when it began so the ages of the men(?) could have been between 9 and 23
ie 12, 17, 15, 17, 23, 18, 9, 12, 11 respectively

and yes, the children were yet again let down by the adults who were paid to look after them but as in previous cases there will be no blame attached to them for doing their well paid jobs so badly!